FVC Labor Union- Philippine Transport and General
Workers Organization (FVCLU-PTGWO) v Sama-Samang
Nagkakaisang Manggagawa sa FVC Solidarity of
Independent and General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-
FVC-SIGLO)
Nov 27, 2009|Brion, J.| Collective Bargaining Agreement;
Terms of Contract
Digester: Anna Mickaella Lingat
SUMMARY: FVCLU-PTGWO is the bargaining agent of the
rank-and-file employees of FVC Philippines Incorporated. It
signed a five-year CBA, which was renegotiated and hence,
extended by 4 months. On January 21, 2003 or nine days before
the expiration of the original CBA term, SANAMA-SIGLO filed
a PCE, but this was opposed by FVCLU-PTGWO because it
was outside the freedom period or 60 days prior to the
expiration of the renegotiated CBA, which is on May 31, 2003.
Although SANAMA-SIGLO eventually desisted from pursuing
the case, the Court held that the PCE was seasonably filed by
SANAMA-SIGLO because the amendment of the CBA did not
extend the extension of the union’s exclusive bargaining status,
which remained effective only until January 31, 2003.
DOCTRINE: While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs
original five-year term together with all other CBA provisions,
any such amendment or term in excess of five years will not
carry with it a change in the unions exclusive collective
bargaining status. By express provision of the Article 253-A, the
exclusive bargaining status cannot go beyond five years and the
representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace
parties to agree upon. Despite an agreement for a CBA with a
life of more than five years, either as an original provision or by
amendment, the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining status is
effective only for five years and can be challenged within sixty
(60) days prior to the expiration of the CBAs first five years.
FACTS:
 Petitioner FVCLU-PTGWO is the recognized bargaining
agent of the rank-and-file employees of the FVC Philippines
Incorporated. It signed a five-year CBA with the company
(from February 1, 1998 to January 30, 2003).
 At the end of the third year of the five-year term and
pursuant to the CBA, FVCLU-PTGWO and the company
entered into a renegotitation of the CBA and modified the
CBA’s duration.
o Art XXV, Sec 2 of the renegotiated CBA provides that
this re-negotiation agreement shall take effect
beginning February 1, 2001 and until May 31, 2003,
extending the original five-year period of the CBA by 4
months.
 On January 21, 2003, 9 days before the January 30, 2003
expiration of the originally-agreed CBA term, Sama-samang
Nagkakaisang sa FVC-Solidarity of Independent and
General Labor Organizations (SANAMA-SIGLO) filed
before DOLE a petition for certification election for the
same rank-and-file covered by FVCLU-PTGWO.
o FVCLU-PTGWO moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground that the certification election petition was filed
outside the freedom period or outside the 60 days
before the expiration of the CBA on May 31, 2003.
 Med-Arbiter: Dismissed PCE for being filed outside
freedom period counted from the May 31, 2003 expiry date
of the amended CBA.
 DOLE Secretary Tomas: reversed Med-Arbiter and
ordered the conduct of certification election. FVCLU-
PTGWO moved for the reconsideration.
 DOLE Acting Secretary Imson: granted MR; dismissed
PCE.
o The amended CBA, which extended the representation
aspect of the original CBA by 4 months, had been
ratified by members of the bargaining unit some of
whom later organized themselves as SANAMA-
SIGLO.
o Since these SANAMA-SIGLO members fully accepted
and in fact received the benefits arising from the
amendments, they also accepted the extended term of
the CBA and cannot now file a petition for certification
election based on the original CBA expiration date.
o MR denied.
 CA: ruled in favor of SANAMA-SIGLO; reversed DOLE’s
order.
o While the parties may renegotiate the other provisions
(economic and non-economic) of the CBA, this should
not affect the five-year representation aspect of the
original CBA.
o If the duration of the renegotiated agreement does not
coincide with but rather extends the original five-year
term, the same will not adversely affect the right of
another union to challenge the majority status of the
incumbent bargaining agent within 60 days before the
lapse of the original five-year term of the CBA.
o In the event that a new union wins in the certification
election, such union is required to honor and
administer the renegotitated CBA throughout the
excess period.
RULING: Dismissed petition. Affirmed CA’s decision, but
nevertheless declare that no certification election can be
enforced as this petition has effectively been abandoned.
Whether the amendment of the CBA extending its term
carry with it an extension of the union’s exclusive
bargaining status? – NO
Whether a PCE may be filed within the freedom period of
the original CBA? - YES
 PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
o The extension of the CBA term also changed the
unions exclusive bargaining representation status and
effectively moved the reckoning point of the 60-day
freedom period from January 30 to May 30, 2003.
o Thus, when the term of the CBA was extended, its
exclusive bargaining status was similarly extended so
that the freedom period for the filing of a PCE should
be counted back from the expiration of the amended
CBA term.
o SANAMA-SIGLO is estopped from questioning the
extension of the CBA term under the amendments
because its members are the very same ones who
approved the amendments, including the expiration
 date of the CBA, and who benefited from these
amendments.
o The representation petition had been rendered moot by
a new CBA it entered into with the company covering
the period June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2008.
 SANAMA-SIGLO abandoned their desire to contest the
representative status of FVCLU-PTGWO.
o Since the promulgation of the CA decision (three years
after the PCE was filed), the local leaders of
SANAMA-SIGLO had stopped reporting to the
federation office or attending meetings. The
SANAMA-SIGLO counsel, who is also the national
president, is no longer in the position to pursue the
present case because the local union and its leadership
had given up. 
o A new CBA had already been signed up by FVCLU-
PTGWO and the company.
 Nevertheless, the Court still deemed it necessary to resolve
the question of law raised since this exclusive representation
status will inevitably recur in the future.
 Art 253-A of the Labor Code provides:
o Terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Any
Collective Bargaining Agreement that the parties may
enter into, shall, insofar as the representation aspect is
concerned, be for a term of five (5) years. No petition
questioning the majority status of the incumbent
bargaining agent shall be entertained and no
certification election shall be conducted by the
Department of Labor and Employment outside of the
sixty day period immediately before the date of expiry
of such five-year term of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. All other provisions of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement shall be renegotiated not later
than three (3) years after its execution.
o Any agreement on such other provisions of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into within
six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of
such other provisions as fixed in such Collective
Bargaining Agreement, shall retroact to the day
immediately following such date. If any such agreement
is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall
agree on the duration of retroactivity thereof. In case of
a deadlock in the renegotiation of the collective
bargaining agreement, the parties may exercise their
rights under this Code.
 This provision is implemented through Book V, Rule VIII,
Sec 14(b):
o Sec. 14. Denial of the petition; grounds. The Med-
Arbiter may dismiss the petition on any of the
following grounds: x x x x
o (b) the petition was filed before or after the freedom
period of a duly registered collective bargaining
agreement; provided that the sixty-day period based on
the original collective bargaining agreement shall not be
affected by any amendment, extension or renewal of
the collective bargaining agreement.
 While the parties may agree to extend the CBAs
original five-year term together with all other CBA
provisions, any such amendment or term in excess of
five years will not carry with it a change in the unions
exclusive collective bargaining status.
 By express provision of the Article 253-A, the exclusive
bargaining status cannot go beyond five years and the
representation status is a legal matter not for the workplace
parties to agree upon.
 Despite an agreement for a CBA with a life of more than
five years, either as an original provision or by amendment,
the bargaining unions exclusive bargaining status is
effective only for five years and can be challenged
within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the
CBAs first five years.
 San Miguel Corp Employees Union PTGWO v Confesor: In the
event however, that the parties, by mutual agreement, enter
into a renegotiated contract with a term of three (3) years or
one which does not coincide with the said five-year term
and said agreement is ratified by majority of the members in
the bargaining unit, the subject contract is valid and legal
and therefore, binds the contracting parties. The same will
however not adversely affect the right of another union to
challenge the majority status of the incumbent bargaining
agent within sixty (60) days before the lapse of the original
five (5) year term of the CBA.
As applied in this case:
 The CBA was originally signed for a period of five years
(expires on January 30, 2003), with a provision for a
renegotiation of the CBAs other provisions at the end of
the 3rd year. Thus, prior to January 30, 2001, the workplace
parties sat down for renegotiation but instead of confining
themselves to the economic and non-economic CBA
provisions, also extended the life of the CBA for another
four months.
 This negotiated extension of the CBA term has no legal
effect on the FVCLU-PTGWOs exclusive bargaining
representation status which remained effective only for 5
years ending on the original expiry date of January 30, 2003.
 Hence, sixty days prior to this date, or starting December 2,
2002, SANAMA-SIGLO could properly field a PCE.
 Its petition filed on January 21, 2003 or 9 days before the
expiration of the CBA was seasonable filed.